The Republican-controlled House of Representatives took a break last week from doing nothing to pass a bill to facilitate voluntary taxation. Almost simultaneously, Mitt Romney released his final tax return for 2011, showing that he voluntarily overpaid his taxes by taking less of a deduction for his charitable contributions than he was permitted.

The legislation was H.R. 6410, “The Buffett Rule Act of 2012.” Those
not acquainted with the misleading titles often given to Congressional
bills might at first glance think this one has something to do with
raising taxes on the ultrawealthy.

Of course, Republicans would
never actually raise taxes on the ultrawealthy; they think, or at least
assert publicly, that the deficit results from too many poor people not paying taxes.
But it would be very helpful to them to have a fig leaf that looks as
if they had found a way of getting the rich to pay more. That is by
encouraging them to voluntarily pay more, as Mr. Romney did. ...

The political reality is that Republicans don’t really support taxation
at any level. Of course, none will go on the record saying that they
favor abolition of all taxation; they just support every single tax cut
and oppose every single tax increase. I have not heard any Republican in
recent years acknowledge that the deficit results in any way from lower
revenues; rather, they say, the deficit is caused only by excessive
spending on everything except the military. Implicitly, therefore, the
only kind of taxation a Republican can support is voluntary taxation. ...

Realistically, voluntary taxation is not a viable alternative to
broad-based taxes. Those who oppose raising taxes on the wealthy and are
concerned about the number of people exempt from federal income taxes
ought to consider a national sales tax, as every other major country has. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 21, one virtue of consumption taxes is that they are to some extent voluntary.